A Survey of Mobility Support in the Internet
draft-zhu-mobility-survey-04

Support Stewart's Discuss. There is no reason for I-Ds to turn up in evaluation without having run idnits

I support Stewart's DISCUSS. 

I am wondering why was this document AD-sponsored and did not go on the Independent Stream. It obviously required quite a lot of efforts from the sponsoring AD (and the rest of the IESG) as there is a lot of information about more than a dozen of protocols whose accuracy needs to be verified. Then there will be some more as the document has obvious formatting and document structure issues. It is not clear to me what is the benefit. 

Also, if we already are approving such a broad protocols survey I would have expected some informations about operational and manageability considerations. There is a discussion about deployment issues (which is good) but this is not sufficient. 

This is a fine document and I support its publication as an Informational RFC. 

I have one nit: the use of "mobile" as a noun (e.g., "A system that keeps track each mobile's reachability during the mobile's moving") is colloquial and potentially confusing (e.g., in "mobile replies" is the term a noun or an adjective?). Because you do not want to distinguish between mobile nodes and mobile subnets, I suggest "mobile entity".

(There are also typographical errors, such as "Protocols like E2E, ILNP and BTMM fail into this design" instead of "fall into", but I assume that those will be fixed during the RFC Editor's review.)

I can't check the reference so I can't figure out if there is any trade name issue with reference "Sony". Did the authors of the paper work for Sony?